Education Dept. : BDS activity against Israel will be defined as anti-Semitism

[Sixties Fan]

Trump's Education Department weighs in on anti-Semitism case

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s Education Department has reopened an old discrimination case against Rutgers University and is revisiting what constitutes anti-Semitism.

The case stems from a 2011 event sponsored at Rutgers by an outside organization that was accused of charging Jewish attendees for admission while allowing others in for free.

The initial investigation was closed by the department under President Barack Obama’s administration in 2014. But the Zionist Group of America says the department has reopened the case based on its appeal.

In a letter to the group, Kenneth Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, cites a broad definition of anti-Semitism that includes, among other things, “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

That language was adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group that includes the United States and European Union states, and was embraced by the State Department under the Obama administration.

In his letter, Marcus also said discrimination “on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics” would violate federal discrimination laws and falls under the agency’s description. The statement appears to indicate that the department is considering anti-Semitism as discrimination against an ethnic group, not a religious one.

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

What is supportable? What are you looking at?
Who is on the left and who is on the right?

The problem with the Labour party in the UK, is the same as any other country and their parties. It depends on who is taking over power in government and if they are listening to anti Israel voices or not, and why. What are they getting out of it?

Sweden, Norway, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal. All of these European countries and more
have been flooded with anti Israel voices for the past 40 years. It is very clear that those voices have been making inroads for the past 10 years, in who is getting into governments in any and all of those countries, and why some governments are making the decisions they have been making.

Those voices want to destroy Israel. That is what BDS is all about.

Israel, on the other hand, is out there in the world helping, building, rescuing, and doing everything in Israel and in Judea and Samaria to help the Arab Palestinians have secure jobs, education and health care in order to help them move on and not want to become another "Martyr" for Islam.

Do notice how it is "being a Martyr for Islam, and not for Palestine"

 

[Coyote]

Trump's Education Department weighs in on anti-Semitism case

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s Education Department has reopened an old discrimination case against Rutgers University and is revisiting what constitutes anti-Semitism.

The case stems from a 2011 event sponsored at Rutgers by an outside organization that was accused of charging Jewish attendees for admission while allowing others in for free.

The initial investigation was closed by the department under President Barack Obama’s administration in 2014. But the Zionist Group of America says the department has reopened the case based on its appeal.

In a letter to the group, Kenneth Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, cites a broad definition of anti-Semitism that includes, among other things, “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

That language was adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group that includes the United States and European Union states, and was embraced by the State Department under the Obama administration.

In his letter, Marcus also said discrimination “on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics” would violate federal discrimination laws and falls under the agency’s description. The statement appears to indicate that the department is considering anti-Semitism as discrimination against an ethnic group, not a religious one.

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

Excuse me but.....OH, Please !!!!!

None of us has ever considered all Muslims responsible for the acts of some Muslims.

If it were so, there would be no Muslims living in Israel, as there are no Jews living in Gaza, Jordan and most of the Muslim countries.

Unfortunately, you alone as well as a few others, do not see the irony of what you post.

You are very restricted in what you read. There are countless posts here in auSMB essentially blaming all Muslims or all Palestinians for the acts of terrorism or violence. You easily see antisemitism, not so easily when the target is a group you don’t particularly agree with. Why not apply the same standards to both groups?

I do not know who those pro Israel people blaming ALL Muslims or all Palestinians are, and in which communities or threads.

All I know is that none of those I know in this community and threads have done so.

In what ways in Israel, or Jews in the world, boycotting or harming the Palestinians living anywhere in the world, or especially in Israel?

Why are we talking about "anywhere in the world"? Israeli settlements are the subject (or should be) of BDS. What is happening to Jews or Palestinians ouside of Israel/Palestine should be irrelevant. The "Jews of the world" should be irrelevent - isn't that effectively blaming all Jews for the Israeli policy?

As far as Israel - does Israel support the US's complete disinvestment of Palestinians? Including even money given to Palestinian hospitals in Jerusalum? Has Israel pushed for this?

If you are talking about the legal embargo started by Israel against Gaza after Israel left that place, then you do need to bring the why it had to be done, and why it must continue to be so.

No, I am not talking about the embargo, that's another issue.

If you insist that Israel has not been attacked by thousands of rockets since 2005, and now, included, thousands of fires started by the people of Gaza against Jews in Israel, and that there has never been a need to start that embargo to keep weapons from the hands of Hamas and other terror organizations over there, then you truly do not understand the issues between Hamas (Gaza) and the State of Israel.

I have never insisted they have not, and I have always agreed Israel has a right to defend itself so let's not go there.

If Jews were to target Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc, the way all of those countries have always targeted Israel, attempting to destroy it.......considering how fragile they can be economically........

They could and it would be within their rights to do so though I suspect that the trade issues would hurt Israel as well.

Where is the Israeli BDS movement against any and all of those Muslim countries, or against the Palestinians, when Israel gives jobs, education and health care to so many of them?

Well for that...you do have the embargo and you have the US disinvestment of Palestine which I'm sure is being done with Israel's blessing.

How many Jews or Israelis are being given jobs, education, or health care in Yemen, Egypt, Syria, etc? Seriously?

No argument from me on Israel's humanitarian efforts, but it is also not relevent to the issue.

How many Jews are left in any of those Muslim countries?

Also not relevent to the issue other than "but look at and what about" arguments.

Tunisia seems to be an exception, as well as very few Muslim countries friendly towards Israel, at the moment.

Good. IMO all the states in the ME including Israel need to forge bonds of trade, peace, and shared humanitarian concerns - extremism and failed states are a huge threat to everyone and should unite them.

Can you actually say that Israelis have been against Palestinians since 1920 and attempted attacks on them and did everything to keep those Arabs from building up and having their own States in 1937 and 1947? Or anytime after?

To a degree, yes...but you are also covering a huge span of history.

 

[rylah]

Trump's Education Department weighs in on anti-Semitism case

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s Education Department has reopened an old discrimination case against Rutgers University and is revisiting what constitutes anti-Semitism.

The case stems from a 2011 event sponsored at Rutgers by an outside organization that was accused of charging Jewish attendees for admission while allowing others in for free.

The initial investigation was closed by the department under President Barack Obama’s administration in 2014. But the Zionist Group of America says the department has reopened the case based on its appeal.

In a letter to the group, Kenneth Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, cites a broad definition of anti-Semitism that includes, among other things, “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

That language was adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group that includes the United States and European Union states, and was embraced by the State Department under the Obama administration.

In his letter, Marcus also said discrimination “on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics” would violate federal discrimination laws and falls under the agency’s description. The statement appears to indicate that the department is considering anti-Semitism as discrimination against an ethnic group, not a religious one.

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

That's a nice picture You've drawn, looks good outside of the real world.
Let's talk reality, numbers, how many Jewish anti-Muslim groups do You know of in the US,
that use the same openly vile rhetoric as BDS?

 

[Coyote]

Trump's Education Department weighs in on anti-Semitism case

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s Education Department has reopened an old discrimination case against Rutgers University and is revisiting what constitutes anti-Semitism.

The case stems from a 2011 event sponsored at Rutgers by an outside organization that was accused of charging Jewish attendees for admission while allowing others in for free.

The initial investigation was closed by the department under President Barack Obama’s administration in 2014. But the Zionist Group of America says the department has reopened the case based on its appeal.

In a letter to the group, Kenneth Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, cites a broad definition of anti-Semitism that includes, among other things, “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

That language was adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group that includes the United States and European Union states, and was embraced by the State Department under the Obama administration.

In his letter, Marcus also said discrimination “on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics” would violate federal discrimination laws and falls under the agency’s description. The statement appears to indicate that the department is considering anti-Semitism as discrimination against an ethnic group, not a religious one.

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

I see a lot of responses where it's disparaged as "it's an anomoly" type of responses. I quit posting about it because of that. I'll have to look up topics.

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

See that is EXACTLY the type of argument I'm talking about. You just provided the perfect example. Islam, as a religion is compatible with democracy. Look at India. Look at the US. Look at Canada. All have muslim citizens that uphold their countries values and democratic principles. The problem is when you mix religion with government - democratic values and minority religious rights usually loses. And that includes Israel if it continues to go down that path.

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

A guide to Labour anti-Semitism claims

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism ‘problem’ becomes a crisis

 

[Coyote]

Trump's Education Department weighs in on anti-Semitism case

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s Education Department has reopened an old discrimination case against Rutgers University and is revisiting what constitutes anti-Semitism.

The case stems from a 2011 event sponsored at Rutgers by an outside organization that was accused of charging Jewish attendees for admission while allowing others in for free.

The initial investigation was closed by the department under President Barack Obama’s administration in 2014. But the Zionist Group of America says the department has reopened the case based on its appeal.

In a letter to the group, Kenneth Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, cites a broad definition of anti-Semitism that includes, among other things, “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

That language was adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group that includes the United States and European Union states, and was embraced by the State Department under the Obama administration.

In his letter, Marcus also said discrimination “on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics” would violate federal discrimination laws and falls under the agency’s description. The statement appears to indicate that the department is considering anti-Semitism as discrimination against an ethnic group, not a religious one.

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

That's a nice picture You've drawn, looks good outside of the real world.
Let's talk reality, numbers, how many Jewish anti-Muslim groups do You know of in the US,
that use the same openly vile rhetoric as BDS?

I don't support BDS as it is - I agree that the movement has attracted antisemitist groups and it's poisoned. But I do support the principle of boycots in order to force political change - there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not abandoning this discussion, but must run and do some real work I've been avoiding by being online I'll be back.

 

[rylah]

I'm not abandoning this discussion, but must run and do some real work I've been avoiding by being online I'll be back.

Be well.

 

[Shusha]

Where else is another country occupying a disputed territory who’s status and ownership is yet to be settled?

You're kidding, right? I brought up Morocco PAGES ago.

The fact that it is considered "occupied" by Israel is, of itself, a double standard not applied anywhere else in the world. Does Spain "occupy" Catalonia?

Where else is disputed territory required to remain free of certain ethnic groups? Why would you not consider that to be discrimination?

BDS calls for the parts of Israel/Palestine which were successfully ethnically cleansed of Jews to remain Jew-free while insisting that all of Israel/Palestine be available for Arab return. Why would you not see that as a double standard based on ethnicity?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

Excuse me but.....OH, Please !!!!!

None of us has ever considered all Muslims responsible for the acts of some Muslims.

If it were so, there would be no Muslims living in Israel, as there are no Jews living in Gaza, Jordan and most of the Muslim countries.

Unfortunately, you alone as well as a few others, do not see the irony of what you post.

You are very restricted in what you read. There are countless posts here in auSMB essentially blaming all Muslims or all Palestinians for the acts of terrorism or violence. You easily see antisemitism, not so easily when the target is a group you don’t particularly agree with. Why not apply the same standards to both groups?

I do not know who those pro Israel people blaming ALL Muslims or all Palestinians are, and in which communities or threads.

All I know is that none of those I know in this community and threads have done so.

In what ways in Israel, or Jews in the world, boycotting or harming the Palestinians living anywhere in the world, or especially in Israel?

Why are we talking about "anywhere in the world"? Israeli settlements are the subject (or should be) of BDS. What is happening to Jews or Palestinians ouside of Israel/Palestine should be irrelevant. The "Jews of the world" should be irrelevent - isn't that effectively blaming all Jews for the Israeli policy?

As far as Israel - does Israel support the US's complete disinvestment of Palestinians? Including even money given to Palestinian hospitals in Jerusalum? Has Israel pushed for this?

If you are talking about the legal embargo started by Israel against Gaza after Israel left that place, then you do need to bring the why it had to be done, and why it must continue to be so.

No, I am not talking about the embargo, that's another issue.

If you insist that Israel has not been attacked by thousands of rockets since 2005, and now, included, thousands of fires started by the people of Gaza against Jews in Israel, and that there has never been a need to start that embargo to keep weapons from the hands of Hamas and other terror organizations over there, then you truly do not understand the issues between Hamas (Gaza) and the State of Israel.

I have never insisted they have not, and I have always agreed Israel has a right to defend itself so let's not go there.

If Jews were to target Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc, the way all of those countries have always targeted Israel, attempting to destroy it.......considering how fragile they can be economically........

They could and it would be within their rights to do so though I suspect that the trade issues would hurt Israel as well.

Where is the Israeli BDS movement against any and all of those Muslim countries, or against the Palestinians, when Israel gives jobs, education and health care to so many of them?

Well for that...you do have the embargo and you have the US disinvestment of Palestine which I'm sure is being done with Israel's blessing.

How many Jews or Israelis are being given jobs, education, or health care in Yemen, Egypt, Syria, etc? Seriously?

No argument from me on Israel's humanitarian efforts, but it is also not relevent to the issue.

How many Jews are left in any of those Muslim countries?

Also not relevent to the issue other than "but look at and what about" arguments.

Tunisia seems to be an exception, as well as very few Muslim countries friendly towards Israel, at the moment.

Good. IMO all the states in the ME including Israel need to forge bonds of trade, peace, and shared humanitarian concerns - extremism and failed states are a huge threat to everyone and should unite them.

Can you actually say that Israelis have been against Palestinians since 1920 and attempted attacks on them and did everything to keep those Arabs from building up and having their own States in 1937 and 1947? Or anytime after?

To a degree, yes...but you are also covering a huge span of history.

Did you not bring up the Jews of the US, etc, etc?

Israel is asking any country to stop supporting terrorism against Israelis, Jews, Muslims, Druze, anyone.
UNWRA supports terrorism against Israelis.
Some of the Arab schools in Jerusalem support and teach terrorism against Israelis.

Do not worry about Israel someday not doing business with Saudi Arabia or Jordan, etc. The ones harmed, as it has been shown, have been these countries and not Israel.
Israel is the startup nation. Those countries depend on oil, and basically nothing else.
And Israel did just fine when the US and other countries cut necessary things for the last 10 years.

Of course Israel and many Jews outside of Israel are blessing the US and other countries like Belgium finally stopping the funding of terrorism tools against Israel.
Terrorism and how it is perpetuated to next generations of Muslims in Gaza and the PA territories must end, sooner than later.
It is the only way the Palestinian leaders of next generations will be able to embrace peace with Israel and stop the war they started in 1920.

[Good. IMO all the states in the ME including Israel need to forge bonds of trade, peace, and shared humanitarian concerns - extremism and failed states are a huge threat to everyone and should unite them.]

Apparently you may not have paid attention that it is Israel which keep making the efforts, and gladly succeeding, in having relations with Muslim countries in the ME, who only about 10 to 20 years ago when demanding its destruction.
Not to say that many in those countries do not continue to do so and are not happy with the relations those countries are having now with Israel.

You have absolutely no examples to give as to Israelis being against the Arabs having their own State. None. To a certain degree or not.

1920 was given because that is when the Arab leaders who were against the Jews having their sovereign state declared war on that idea and the Jews there in general.
All of the riots, murders and wars from 1920 on did not happen in a vacuum, they happened because one Arab leader in particular managed to be more powerful than other Arab leaders who wanted peace with the Jews and were pro a Jewish State on their own ancient homeland.

 

[rylah]

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

That's a nice picture You've drawn, looks good outside of the real world.
Let's talk reality, numbers, how many Jewish anti-Muslim groups do You know of in the US,
that use the same openly vile rhetoric as BDS?

I don't support BDS as it is - I agree that the movement has attracted antisemitist groups and it's poisoned. But I do support the principle of boycots in order to force political change - there is nothing wrong with that.

I think You should re-read the article, it deals with a specific case of racial discrimination in a US university as an example of the hatred promoted by the BDS organization ,and with the application of the Working Definition of Antisemitism.

The case starts at the point where political discourse ended long ago.

 

[member]

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

That's a nice picture You've drawn, looks good outside of the real world.
Let's talk reality, numbers, how many Jewish anti-Muslim groups do You know of in the US,
that use the same openly vile rhetoric as BDS?

I don't support BDS as it is - I agree that the movement has attracted antisemitist groups and it's poisoned. But I do support the principle of boycots in order to force political change - there is nothing wrong with that.

" I do support the principle of boycots in order to force political change - there is nothing wrong with that..."


....as long as it's...for the good, right? and not some stupid "liberal" junk... LoL....[sorry]. i bet you'd vote for an illegal mexican for president [who admits he looooveees his cervesa)....si?

 

[Shusha]

Keep in mind that in a 2016 Pew Poll 46 or 48% (don’t remember off the top of my head) of Jews in Israel want to expel all Arabs from Israel with signicantly higher numbers in certain religious subgroups.

And you find this problematic, why, exactly? Given that you support the expulsion of Jews from Arab Palestine and require Arab Palestine to remain Jew-free.

See, I am the one arguing consistently that both Israel and Palestine should have a mixture of both Jews and Arabs. I am the one arguing that anything less is discrimination.

 

[Shusha]

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

The one is condemned for extremist actions (terrorism) and the other is condemned for desiring self-determination (Zionism). Not seeing a moral equivalence there.

 

[Shusha]

But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

I'm sure this is true. But they aren't very visible. As compared to say, Linda Sarsour, who cautions American Muslims not to see Israelis (Jews) as human.

How can we increase the visibility of those Muslim groups? It seems to me that is exactly what this thread is asking. Why are those American Muslim (or Arab) groups not policing their own? Why are they not spear-heading the fight against anti-semitism at BDS events?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

In Islam women are treated as property. That was not the case in ancient Western Europe where women were queens. I agree that you need separation of church and state but Islam on top of treating women like garbage, hate dogs, kill gays, hate Jews and Christians, kill you for drawing pics of Mo. It is a primitive and dangerous ideology. Again can you name one mostly Muslim country that has social values that are expected in today's modern westernized world? There is not ONE. There are 53 of them. Coincidence?

The one Jewish nation is in fact tolerant, a democracy, a military power and economically strong.

In ancient Western Europe women were property, Jews were frequently expelled, subject to pogroms and restrictions and periodically killed.

You have dodged my question. I answered yours. In a conversation it is polite to answer each other's questions. Islam again is very tough not to judge very negatively. My Muslim friends here in the US. Great guys. Treat their women as 2nd class. Both had arranged marriages.

"My Muslim friends here in the US. Great guys"



....is this what their wives look like? seriously.






i know the same muslims you know.




"great guys."



ohhhhhhh yeah.......

​

​

They're.Grrrrrrrrrreeaat !

​

​

​

What does that have to do with anything?

"What does that have to do with anything?"


i was illustrating to...the defiler.... in my own little way, about... my feelings on islam light and islam HARD...[unfortunately, the same thing].


is it that bad ?..............? too many pictures for you ? am i way off topic ? oh, there's a surprise ! you can take it down if it's to LOUD .....(we keep you busy here, and you don't even get paid for it, right?) .

I don't get it. I agree with you?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Let’s rephrase that. Can you name any country in history where religion is government that embraces our social values? The problem isn’t Islam it is religion in government. It always sucks for women and religious minorities throughout history.

In Islam women are treated as property. That was not the case in ancient Western Europe where women were queens. I agree that you need separation of church and state but Islam on top of treating women like garbage, hate dogs, kill gays, hate Jews and Christians, kill you for drawing pics of Mo. It is a primitive and dangerous ideology. Again can you name one mostly Muslim country that has social values that are expected in today's modern westernized world? There is not ONE. There are 53 of them. Coincidence?

The one Jewish nation is in fact tolerant, a democracy, a military power and economically strong.

In ancient Western Europe women were property, Jews were frequently expelled, subject to pogroms and restrictions and periodically killed.

You have dodged my question. I answered yours. In a conversation it is polite to answer each other's questions. Islam again is very tough not to judge very negatively. My Muslim friends here in the US. Great guys. Treat their women as 2nd class. Both had arranged marriages.

"My Muslim friends here in the US. Great guys"



....is this what their wives look like? seriously.






i know the same muslims you know.




"great guys."



ohhhhhhh yeah.......

​

​

They're.Grrrrrrrrrreeaat !

​

​

​

What does that have to do with anything?

Why do you always answer questions with questions. Can we agree that Islam is indeed the "mother load of bad ideas"?

 

[member]

In ancient Western Europe women were property, Jews were frequently expelled, subject to pogroms and restrictions and periodically killed.

You have dodged my question. I answered yours. In a conversation it is polite to answer each other's questions. Islam again is very tough not to judge very negatively. My Muslim friends here in the US. Great guys. Treat their women as 2nd class. Both had arranged marriages.

"My Muslim friends here in the US. Great guys"



....is this what their wives look like? seriously.






i know the same muslims you know.




"great guys."



ohhhhhhh yeah.......

​

​

They're.Grrrrrrrrrreeaat !

​

​

​

What does that have to do with anything?

"What does that have to do with anything?"


i was illustrating to...the defiler.... in my own little way, about... my feelings on islam light and islam HARD...[unfortunately, the same thing].


is it that bad ?..............? too many pictures for you ? am i way off topic ? oh, there's a surprise ! you can take it down if it's to LOUD .....(we keep you busy here, and you don't even get paid for it, right?) .

I don't get it. I agree with you?

i know.....

i was telling this to coyote ..... she replied that....... ...she didn't care for my post and all the degrading muslim-women pictures...it had nothing to do with...life or this thread. it was too much.

 

[Coyote]

Where else is another country occupying a disputed territory who’s status and ownership is yet to be settled?

You're kidding, right? I brought up Morocco PAGES ago.

The fact that it is considered "occupied" by Israel is, of itself, a double standard not applied anywhere else in the world. Does Spain "occupy" Catalonia?

Where else is disputed territory required to remain free of certain ethnic groups? Why would you not consider that to be discrimination?

BDS calls for the parts of Israel/Palestine which were successfully ethnically cleansed of Jews to remain Jew-free while insisting that all of Israel/Palestine be available for Arab return. Why would you not see that as a double standard based on ethnicity?

You brought up Morocco but you have not said how it is comparable - how is it?

The issue of settlements is that those settlements are on occupied or disputed territory, that the other side claims for it's own state. Right or wrong - that is the issue and politically, the settlements are a means of solidifying Israeli control of that territory. That is the reality on the ground. Ideally - and you and I agree on this - the state lines should include which ever ethnic groups are living there without prejudice. But realistically do you see Israel letting that territory go to a future Palestinian state? (or unfortunately, the Palestinians accepting Jewish settlers and Jewish settlers accepting Palestinians in their area). Team Israel keeps insisting settlements aren't an obstacle to peace yet they clearly are.

You mention BDS' double standard - but keep in mind the attitude of the Israel's Jews and of the SETTLERS themselves here: Israel’s Religiously Divided Society

Settlements are almost entirely Jewish in membership - the number of non Jews is miniscule and I suspect those places are really now large established cities vs. "settlements". How many non Jews live in settlements? How many in the newly recognized settlements? How many Jews have moved into the West Bank from Israel in recent years? How many non-Jewish people? Most of the Palestinians there have been there for years.

 

[Coyote]

In Islam women are treated as property. That was not the case in ancient Western Europe where women were queens. I agree that you need separation of church and state but Islam on top of treating women like garbage, hate dogs, kill gays, hate Jews and Christians, kill you for drawing pics of Mo. It is a primitive and dangerous ideology. Again can you name one mostly Muslim country that has social values that are expected in today's modern westernized world? There is not ONE. There are 53 of them. Coincidence?

The one Jewish nation is in fact tolerant, a democracy, a military power and economically strong.

In ancient Western Europe women were property, Jews were frequently expelled, subject to pogroms and restrictions and periodically killed.

You have dodged my question. I answered yours. In a conversation it is polite to answer each other's questions. Islam again is very tough not to judge very negatively. My Muslim friends here in the US. Great guys. Treat their women as 2nd class. Both had arranged marriages.

"My Muslim friends here in the US. Great guys"



....is this what their wives look like? seriously.






i know the same muslims you know.




"great guys."



ohhhhhhh yeah.......

​

​

They're.Grrrrrrrrrreeaat !

​

​

​

What does that have to do with anything?

Why do you always answer questions with questions. Can we agree that Islam is indeed the "mother load of bad ideas"?

Because that post asked me no questions and made little sense in relation to the topic - hence my question - what does it have to do with the discussion? Member can always choose to actually converse should he want to instead of posting pictures of women in burkhas which is rarely worn by Palestinian women.

No. Because you are essentially broadbrushing an entire religion and on top of that - providing erroneous information. You claimed in historical Western Europe women were treated like queens. That is laughable. All religions in their conservative sects and history have treated women like shit and like property. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism - but you ignore that. Now I will agree that in the modern world, in many countries Islam is more conservative, more restrictive and much in need of enlightenment but that is also tied to the culture. Muslims in America for example, are no different than their Christian counterparts but that is ignored in the broad brushing and it is in that where I have an issue. Are you questions sufficiently answered?

 

[Coyote]

But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

I'm sure this is true. But they aren't very visible. As compared to say, Linda Sarsour, who cautions American Muslims not to see Israelis (Jews) as human.

How can we increase the visibility of those Muslim groups? It seems to me that is exactly what this thread is asking. Why are those American Muslim (or Arab) groups not policing their own? Why are they not spear-heading the fight against anti-semitism at BDS events?

In one sense, we can blame the media - why do they choose to emphasize some over the others? Much of what I read about Sarsour is from rightwing sources using her to point out anti-semitism, those same sources who ignore or downplay cooperative enterprises that ARE in the news but don't get latched on to.